Re: [RFC] syntax highlighting

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please@cygwin.com>]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 07:05:20PM +0100, Jon Beniston wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 07:56:33PM +0200, Th.R.Klein wrote:
>>Sorry but I do not understand where I've done something that violates
>>the existing copyright.
>
>You haven't.
>
>>As far as I'm interpreting this, I'm allowed to modify the source e.g.
>>by adding the syntax highlighting stuff to it.
>
>You are.  If you want to take all the source and start your own fork
>that's fine.
>
>>Red Hat itself might have a set of rules which kind of modification
>>they accept and which they will reject.
>
>The only reason I can see why you need to assign copyright is so that
>Red Hat can license Insight under a different (non-free) license.  But
>maybe I'm being a tad cynical.

Yes, just a tad.

The FSF requires similar license transferrals for gdb and no one ever
accused them of trying to provide things under a non-free license.

In the Insight case, I believe that Red Hat wants to make sure that all
of the code ownership is clear so that there will be no claims where a
company insists that they own some snippet of code added by an employee.
I believe that this is the same reason that the FSF requires similar
transfer of ownership for major changes to gdb, gcc, binutils, etc.

Additionally, since insight intertwines itself with gdb, I don't believe
you could sell it as non-free anyway since gdb's GPL would trump any
other license.

cgf